Hoy v. Hansborough
Mississippi Chancery Courts
This bill states that on the 19th January, 1838, the complainant’s intestate, and the defendants, Calvin Hansborough and Jesse Denson, did form a partnership in mercantile business, which partnership was dissolved on the 31st January, 1838, and the complainant’s intestate agreed to retire from the firm, and in consideration thereof took from the defendants a bond, conditioned that they would “ save harmless, and indemnify the said.James M. Buckner, his heirs, executors and…
Read the full summary
This bill states that on the 19th January, 1838, the complainant’s intestate, and the defendants, Calvin Hansborough and Jesse Denson, did form a partnership in mercantile business, which partnership was dissolved on the 31st January, 1838, and the complainant’s intestate agreed to retire from the firm, and in consideration thereof took from the defendants a bond, conditioned that they would “ save harmless, and indemnify the said.James M. Buckner, his heirs, executors and administrators, from all loss and injury, damages, costs, and charges that shall or may at any time hereafter accrue to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The complainant was a member of a mercantile concern, composed of himself, Calvin Hansborough and Jesse Denson, and upon retiring therefrom took from the other partners a bond with sureties, conditioned to save him harmless, and to indemnify him against “all loss and injury, damages, costs and charges,” that might be incurred by him by reason of his liability on certain enumerated outstanding debts against the firm. He states that the obligors in said bond have not kept and performed the condition thereof, but have failed to pay one of the claims which had matured against the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mullen v. M'KelvySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Central Trust Co. v. Louisville Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1900
- Henderson-Achert Lithographic Co. v. John Shillito Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1901